Blade Runner 2049.

[citoyen]

The 1st-person narration is a nice idea; Raymond Chandler-esque, it fits with the film wanting to be a blend of grimy film noir and sci-fi.

Sadly, it doesn't really work! But it certainly doesn't ruin (that version of) the movie. Its ages since I watched it, but I suspect most of the best scenes don't have any voice-over, perhaps that saved it?

I found it intrusive, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it ruins the film.

It doesn't work because unlike a Chandler novel the perspective of the film is not limited to one person's point of view - you've got a good 10 minutes of preamble before Deckard even appears as a character, and then this extradiegetic voice suddenly pipes up unexpectedly. It feels bolted on as an afterthought, and it's clear that the only reason it's there is because they didn't trust the audience to be able to understand what's going without it.

[Exit Stage Left]

I saw Blade Runner at the ABC Preston, in its first week on general release. The cinema was nearly empty, so the chatter of the teenagers, who thought a film with Harrison Ford in it might have echoes of Star Wars, resounded around the walls. As a film for general viewing, the numerous longeurs, and near darkness on the screen, failed to engage the audience.

Here's a lesson for you - a near-empty cinema containing chattering teenagers who were expecting a different kind of film (preferably designed for those with short attention spans)  is often a disappointing experience!

As I say - your loss ...

It certainly was, I paid for the ticket. No-one was there to tell us it was a cult classic, as at that stage it was a new film, to be judged as such.

I judged it as a mash-up of film noir, and Fritz Lang. Here's a lesson for you Matt, your gain.... although paying for something is different from getting it for free. http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2015/04/13/blade-runner-vs-metropolis/

[mattc]

Here's a lesson for you Matt, your gain.... although paying for something is different from getting it for free. http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2015/04/13/blade-runner-vs-metropolis/

Thanks.I found this comment was pretty good at explaining why people* liked the film:

Dick himself was thrilled by what he saw of Blade Runner so I don’t think he was too worried either. The thing with Ridley Scott is that he’s always been more of a visual stylist than a dramatist, three of his early films are set in self-contained fantastic worlds. Critics disliked Blade Runner in 1982 because they were judging it on the story level (and it doesn’t help that it was hacked around beforehand) and seemed unaware that everyone who liked it was responding to the future city, the music, decor, Rutger Hauer, etc. 2001: A Space Odyssey didn’t contribute anything to the evolution of written SF but Blade Runner helped boost the development of cyberpunk. That’s a rare thing; science fiction in film and TV is usually running decades behind its written equivalents.

*apart from:
- teenagers and others with small attention spans who expected another Star Wars. And
- those who dismiss any film that steals some styling from other movies.

[Exit Stage Left]

It's interesting to look at the view of the future in Blade Runner. Compression/Decompression Algorithms are the main oversight. The massive increase in computing power made powerful codecs viable, so the idea of videophone booths now look quaint, as does the elaborate palaver with the photo-enhancement; both can now be done on smartphones.

That spills over into the way the film, and all films, are now consumed. When I saw it, the only way to access it was to sit in a cinema for 117 minutes. VCRs were becoming widespread, but the format was 4:3, so a lot of the 2.35:1 detail of the 35mm print was lost. You can see it in letter-box format on a HD television, but anyone who has not seen it in a cinema, has not seen the film as intended. But people do look at their favourite vignettes on their phones. 

How many people have seen Blade Runner on a full-sized cinema screen? Multiplexes took over shortly after Blade Runner. I saw a lot of the films of the mid 80s in Leicester Square cinemas. My favourite was the 193 minute 'The Right Stuff', which benefitted from a good sound system. I've got that on Blu-ray.

[StuAff]

How many people have seen Blade Runner on a full-sized cinema screen? Multiplexes took over shortly after Blade Runner. I saw a lot of the films of the mid 80s in Leicester Square cinemas. My favourite was the 193 minute 'The Right Stuff', which benefitted from a good sound system. I've got that on Blu-ray.

Saw Director's Cut back in '92 at the ABC in Portsmouth (long demolished) & again at Reading Film Theatre (in the University's Palmer Building lecture theatre).

[Jakob W]

Not so much video codecs as screen tech in general; all those monochrome CRTs and 7-segment LCD displays now look weirdly anachronistic.

[LEE]

How many people have seen Blade Runner on a full-sized cinema screen?

Me. 

However I find that a Blu-ray, on my big LCD TV, with my audio system, wins hands down because nobody is eating, talking, or generally being annoying.

I've gone off the cinema experience tbh.  It's a pain in the arse.

I actually don't think a big cinema screen adds much, I think it's overrated. I get lost in a film.  I'm there so the screen is as big as my imagination.  I've been lost in black and white films shown on a 15" tube TV plenty of times.

The pictures are even better on the radio and in a book.

[Exit Stage Left]

I was recalling about the build-up to some of the wide-screen films, when they'd save the opening of the side curtains until after the Pearl & Dean adverts.

The chatter in the cinema didn't matter when it was full, as they'd turn up the sound really high, as an audience in coats absorbed so much sound. Blade Runner was a bit of a problem, as it's a fairly quiet film, and it didn't get the audiences.

I'm not sure it even made back the filming costs on theatre release. It's made money on Video, DVD and Blu-Ray, probably from the same fan-base. Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't have the same problem.

[Redlight]

... and then this extradiegetic voice suddenly pipes up unexpectedly. It feels bolted on as an afterthought, and it's clear that the only reason it's there is because they didn't trust the audience to be able to understand what's going without it.

It always felt to me to be one of those films that worked better if you had already read the book, in which case you could immerse yourself in the visuals - which were stunning for their time - and not worry too much about working out what was going on. 

You could argue that there is no point making a film that requires pre-reading of the original book and that each should be capable of standing independently, but I think sometimes a film can positively augment a book rather than simply repeat its narrative.

[ian]

I'm actually thinking of getting a narrator. For my life. It would be cool, I think. Add a bit of a noirish tinge.

[Jack Standish]

Really looking forward to it. I've noticed they've been chopping audio in the trailers with all the jump cuts to seemingly change the meaning of the dialogues and make it look like a generic plot about a greedy corporate head played by Leto. I guess they are trying to do a smart marketing thing, attract the ones who likes simple things and keep the more sophisticated fans surprised when it comes out.

[mattc]

I'm actually thinking of getting a narrator. For my life. It would be cool, I think. Add a bit of a noirish tinge.

Your (superb) idea is at least 17 years old. Here is where I first met it:

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Film_20Noir_20Home#1275000248

[citoyen]

I'm actually thinking of getting a narrator. For my life. It would be cool, I think. Add a bit of a noirish tinge.

If I had a narrator for my life, it wouldn't sound noirish so much as Adrian Mole-ish.

[ian]

Apropos of nothing*, I saw the Adrian Mole musical the other day. That was a blast from the past. But yes, I'd hire an appropriate narrator. I like the guy that does the movie trailers. I think he'd be ideal. He'd have to talk quietly today though as my broken patio window is still crinkling away.

*I like saying this, it makes me sound 2.3 times more clever than I actually am.

[Mr Larrington]

Just in from seeing this, because Miss von Brandenburg said we had to.

(click to show/hide)

There's a measured pace, and then there's "half an hour too long".  And the plot "twist", such as it was, was blindingly obvious from the moment Memory Woman appeared.  And why are flying cars so fucking noisy?  Not bad but not great either.  And I expect the inevitable sequels will be dire.

[ian]

Just in from seeing this, because Miss von Brandenburg said we had to.

(click to show/hide)

There's a measured pace, and then there's "half an hour too long".  And the plot "twist", such as it was, was blindingly obvious from the moment Memory Woman appeared.  And why are flying cars so fucking noisy?  Not bad but not great either.  And I expect the inevitable sequels will be dire.

(click to show/hide)

To be fair though, all plot twists are obvious if you're looking for them. The 'economy of characters' rule always gives them away (this rule says that characters only get significant screen time for a reason and in this case the only reason she'd be there was if the memory was hers which made her...)

As said elsewhere, it could have lost some of the gazing into the smoggy middle-distance. That and it didn't do anything to go further than the original.

[PaulF]

Went to see it yesterday, thought it was brilliant. I was captivated throughout

[Robh]

Just in from seeing this, because Miss von Brandenburg said we had to.

(click to show/hide)

There's a measured pace, and then there's "half an hour too long".  And the plot "twist", such as it was, was blindingly obvious from the moment Memory Woman appeared.  And why are flying cars so fucking noisy?  Not bad but not great either.  And I expect the inevitable sequels will be dire.

Wot he sed.

[tonycollinet]

I was never a fan of the original, but saw it Saturday, and loved it.

(click to show/hide)

Best seen in a screen with big sound (Dunkirk like intense sound track)
I did however find the over use of naked women jarring - and one scene consisting of sexualised violence/abuse was quite unpleasant. None of this was in any way necessary for the plot

[Jakob]

Saw it last night.
Did not catch the main plot twist and it did set up nicely for a sequel...which I'm not so sure is a good idea.
Did find it very very slow at times.
Very very pretty..even the grim stuff is extremely well made. (I'm biased as I worked on it, but still!).
However...I can't help thinking that this story would have been stronger on it's own, ie without tying it back to the original BR.
Soundtrack was extremely hit & miss...After the success of Dunkirk, Zimmer was back to his old tricks and it didn't really work.

[Riggers]

Yes, I had to stick my fingers in my ears last night, every time that really loud discordant BBBBWWWWWAAAAAA!!! was going on.

[Nuncio]

It can't be as bad as that.

I have to confess I was always a bit 'meh' over Blade Runner. I mean, it was OK, nicely filmed but a bit ponderous in places.
replicants[/i].

Next you'll be saying that Babylon5 is a big pile of shit...

I've not watched 1 through 4 yet.

On a similar note, can anyone advise if BR2049 would make much sense if you haven't watched 1 through 2048 yet?

[LEE]

On a similar note, can anyone advise if BR2049 would make much sense if you haven't watched 1 through 2048 yet?

Sometimes it's best not to see the first film in a series.  I watched Blackhawk Down right after watching Watership Down and, it seemed to me, the Director had abandoned the original plot entirely.

[Riggers]

^
Excellent! Post Of The Day!!!!

[Karla]

Just in from seeing this, because Miss von Brandenburg said we had to.

(click to show/hide)

There's a measured pace, and then there's "half an hour too long".  And the plot "twist", such as it was, was blindingly obvious from the moment Memory Woman appeared.  And why are flying cars so fucking noisy?  Not bad but not great either.  And I expect the inevitable sequels will be dire.

I actually thought it was just the right length, it kept me absorbed throughout and there was no fat that needed trimming.  Excellent film!